The Top 40

I know what our national interests are in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Syria, I see none.

Ahhh, but there is a compelling national interest in Syria for a plurality of the American polity.

Priority one is to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction while allowing US democrats and eurotrash to deny they were a care package from Baathist Iraq...All while providing a TV friendly distraction from domestic scandals and making 0bama seem 'strong' to his base.

Plus, as Kucinich said; 0bama gets to fundamentally transform the US air force into Al-Qaeda's air force while provoking a wider war that will land squarely on the heads of regional Jews and Christians.

Ain't Democratcy grand?

In this regard, I don't see much difference between progressives and 'conservatives.' Both sides are happy to eat crap as long as 'their side' is feeding it to them. Both sides even accept the same tired old lies. I remember when Colin (or Colon) Powell was caught lying to the U.N. about Iraqi chemical weapons. John Kerry thus continues the Grand Tradition of American Statesmanship. Different turds, same toilet.

See what I mean...

The looming strikes are really about nothing but Obama trying to look tough before he meets with Putin next week.

Link.

They are not all gone, but what a world when my position on Syria war is the same as:

1. Dennis Kucinich

2. Robert Fisk.

3. Huffington Post

There are others, too.

See here's the difference. Conservatives have never been pro-war. We're in reluctant support of or opposed to military action on its own merits.

But the left will trot out all the same tired, discredited, pathetic creaky old lies about Iraq and Bush in defense of this newest warmongering as if that somehow makes the entire idea okay.

Chris, I am confident your statement is correct as it applies to you, personally. However, all one saw on the conservative sites and blogs (with some notable exceptions, like Buchanan) about ten years ago was, "Let's Roll!" The 'conservatives' were pissing themselves with joy over the Iraq War. Every Republican peckerwood at the time fancied himself a geopolitician. The Pub majorities in Congress fell all over themselves passing the Patriot Act and all the other crapola as well. And who, by the way, taught future presidents about the utility of 'signing statements'?

So now the Left gets to put a quarter in the machine. I don't see much difference.

See Lorne, you seem to not quite comprehend what I was saying, or perhaps don't care to. Supporting a war you agree is necessary and right doesn't mean you always like and support war.

But supporting a war because The Right People© are in office when you claim to always be anti-war is... what's the word for that? Its on the tip of my tongue...

Heh.

That reminds me...Need popcorn.

http://youtu.be/-gH8rS_epQE

What If They Had an Anti-War Protest...
And Nobody Came?

Stand by.

The best is yet to come. Soon it will be discovered that those Assad WMDs are the same ones that Saddam shipped to Syria before and during the 2003 invasion. Oh! Wait! Weren't those supposed to be non existent ???

Another counter-example: The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has sent Obama letter that is completely unambiguous in its declaration that bombing Syria, however "limited," will be illegal unless Congress authorizes it, and mere consultation with Congress doesn't count.

I posted the entire letter on my blog.

Oh, you cheated. That's a picture of the peace marches during President Clinton's military action in Kosovo.

I thought it was the peace marches during President "Peace prize" Obama's military action in Libya.